After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 310485 - 'make check' fails
'make check' fails
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: libglade
Classification: Deprecated
Component: general
CVS HEAD
Other All
: Normal blocker
: ---
Assigned To: James Henstridge
James Henstridge
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-07-15 13:04 UTC by Luis Villa
Modified: 2005-07-18 14:04 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.11/2.12



Description Luis Villa 2005-07-15 13:04:01 UTC
Please describe the problem:
I'm running 'make check' in tinderbox now, and libglade is failing. Would be
great if someone can fix.

Testing conversion...
widget convertwidget9 of class GtkList is broken.
widget packer1 of class GtkPacker is removed.
Testing conversion (no upgrade)...
widget list2 of class GtkList is broken.
widget tree2 of class GtkTree is broken.
widget convertwidget9 of class GtkList is broken.
widget text1 of class GtkText is broken.
widget clist1 of class GtkCList is deprecated.
widget ctree1 of class GtkCTree is deprecated.
widget pixmap1 of class GtkPixmap is deprecated.
widget packer1 of class GtkPacker is removed.

Gtk-WARNING **: gtkobject.c:310: Property type `(null)' is not supported by the
GtkArg compatibility code
aborting...
./test-convert: line 30: 32588 Trace/breakpoint trap   ./test-libglade-gtk
test-libglade-gtk-noupgrade.glade2
failed to load file with libglade
FAIL: test-convert


Steps to reproduce:
1. build HEAD (may or may not be required to build it against gtk 2.7)
2. run make check
3. boom.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
Comment 1 Luis Villa 2005-07-18 14:04:04 UTC
So... hrm. Something changed.  :) This now succeeds (the gtk-warning is gone),
so I'm going to close the bug. However, many of the errors are still present, so
it might be worth reviewing them at some point.